Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

True Grit Lady


Ex-COG

Recommended Posts

but you gave one heck of an insight with your lapse of logic.

 

The only lapse of logic here is yours.

 

The burden of proof is on your shoulders, so prove your god exists, if you can.

 

I don't think so, Varokhar.

 

One wonderful I learned from these sorts of conversations playing out over quite a long time is this:

Neither of us can prove God or disprove God. Logic is unequal to the task. All practiced atheists who have thought out the conclusions will quickly admit they cannot disprove God. I quickly admit to you that I cannot prove God, either.

 

That isn't the point. And the proof of burden is upon God, not me. I'm just the apologist. I just try to explain what I can.

oops, I mean "burden of proof"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • truegrit

    36

  • Lycorth

    15

  • white_raven23

    8

  • roman

    8

Logic is different for the Christian than it is for the ex-Christian. (I'm mostly thinking of evangelical/fundamentalist/conservative Christians, though it may be true for the liberal Christians also.) We could say that "X didn't make sense in the Bible" or "Y did this to me" or "God didn't give/do Z for me", and then point out how this lead us to examine the faith, and its claims and results, and how it did not logically line up with what was professed, thus leading us to conclude that the whole belief system didn't hold water. But many Christians will read this, and say "X didn't make sense because of the hardness of your heart, or it wasn't properly taught to you; you need a true teacher/minister to guide you!" or "Y may have done that, and that's something they may need to go to God about, but you just need to keep your eyes on Jesus, forgive them, and keep walking in His guidence" or "God knows what is best for you, thus Z was not in your best interests, or you asked incorrectly, or maybe God wants you to learn something from not having Z" (this will be said even if Z was a request for serious, not frivolous items, such as healing). In other words, what may have led us to examine our faith in a logical manner, is twisted into "You just don't understand X, Y, Z" or "You were hurt by X, Y, Z", and other blah-blah reasons that I'm sure we have all heard. They turn what is logical into excuses.

 

I wouldn't group you [ex-Christians, or even the subgroup of atheists]generally, but I do think that some ex-Christians can have their hurts healed and that there is always a possibility for revelatory insight. The very use of the term"prodigal" is self-explanatory, don't you think?

 

prod·i·gal /ˈprɒdɪgəl/ Pronunciation[prod-i-guhl]

–adjective

1. wastefully or recklessly extravagant: prodigal expenditure.

2. giving or yielding profusely; lavish (usually fol. by of or with): prodigal of smiles; prodigal with money.

3. lavishly abundant; profuse: nature's prodigal resources.

–noun

4. a person who spends, or has spent, his or her money or substance with wasteful extravagance; spendthrift.

 

So, we exChristians are wasteful, extravagant, and spendthrifts? Actually, I prefer definition #2. Yes, I like to think of myself as a giving person. B)

 

Logic is an art and a system. In that sense it stands on its own, and is not different for different groups of thinkers. Fallacies are committed on both sides of the debate. Logic is what regulates whether we can say thinking is fallacious or not. Correct?

 

"Prodigal" is used by me in the sense of the parable given by Christ. No more no less. You committed a logical fallacy here, btw. Changing the terms of the definition.

 

""You just don't understand X, Y, Z" or "You were hurt by X, Y, Z","

This may well be true in specific instances. Surely you recognize that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One wonderful I learned from these sorts of conversations playing out over quite a long time is this:

Neither of us can prove God or disprove God. Logic is unequal to the task.

 

I disagree. Logic is well-suited to the task. It's easy to logically prove the Abrahamic God doesn't exist.

 

All practiced atheists who have thought out the conclusions will quickly admit they cannot disprove God. I quickly admit to you that I cannot prove God, either.

 

I've never heard a single Atheist claim that he or she cannot disprove God's existence. I've heard many claim they cannot disprove the existence of all gods, or that they are certain no gods exist at all. Most Atheists, like myself, are open to the possibility that there may be gods of some nature, somewhere. But the evidence for the existence of any gods, including the Xian one, is simply so insufficient as to suggest that no gods exist.

 

That isn't the point. And the proof of burden is upon God, not me. I'm just the apologist. I just try to explain what I can.

 

The apologist is supposed to provide convincing arguments for God's existence. Hence, you have your duty to prove to me your god is real. Sure, I do agree that God has a responsibility to prove his own existence, if his message is that important for us. So going on that alone, since God doesn't make any attempt to show himself to me and made no attempt to appear or otherwise prove himself in a clear and powerful way when I was in the process of deconverting, I can conclude he doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Topic moved to Lions Den where discussion of this type is more appropriate to Forum. Lady Grit is free to use her powers of persuasion, logic, and testimony here to tell her "side of story" in its full spectrum.

 

kFL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One wonderful I learned from these sorts of conversations playing out over quite a long time is this:

Neither of us can prove God or disprove God. Logic is unequal to the task.

 

I disagree. Logic is well-suited to the task. It's easy to logically prove the Abrahamic God doesn't exist.

 

Proceed then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a post I've just made on another thread...

 

God is all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful, right? If so, he'd never have let evil exist in the first place, being full of love and full of power. If he were all-knowing, he'd know what permitting evil to exist would do. So, the presence of evil proves God doesn't exist.

 

Evil is not necessary for free will. One can simply choose between varying degrees of good. If I can think that up, surely an all-powerful god can do even better. The argument that evil is necessary for free will is just a sad attempt to make the Xian religion seem reasonable when it is in fact nonsense.

 

No all-good god would want to see suffering. One that is also all-powerful would have the ability to prevent it. One that is all-knowing would know why suffering should be done away with - not just for the betterment of his creatures but for his own greater glory. A god with ego problems like the god of Xianity can't possibly avoid that chance. The existence of suffering proves God doesn't exist.

 

He'd also do away with sin and the devil. The devil is the source of sin and all the problems in the world, right? He is the one responsible for screwing up everything that God does, right? Then why not just get rid of him? It would solve everything. Only a cruel sick-ass would let such a dangerous creature exist to continue to do damage to al already damaged world, right? That the devil exists in Xian mythology proves that God can't possibly exist and the entire mythology is flawed.

 

Or how about the fact that every living being in the universe has to devour and/or oppress other living beings just to survive? Plants eat insects, or devour microrganisms in water, insects and animals and people eat plants, people and animals eat insects, insect bite and can poison people and animals, people and animals eat each other, people destroy plants and insects and animals to make homes or clear land for their use and animals often do the same, etc. See what I mean? Why would God make a world where living beings have to destroy each other? We can't even walk without stepping on things. The very nature of the universe proves God doesn't exist.

 

Others have explained the illogicality of God quite well. Here's another take on the issue I found very moving during my deconversion, from evilbible.com:

 

Why the Christian God is Impossible

by Chad Docterman

 

Introduction

 

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory.

 

Proving a Universal Negative

 

It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist.

 

I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.

 

Defining YHWH

 

Before we can discuss the existence of a thing, we must define it. Christians have endowed their God with all of the following attributes: He is eternal, all-powerful, and created everything. He created all the laws of nature and can change anything by an act of will. He is all-good, all-loving, and perfectly just. He is a personal God who experiences all of the emotions a human does. He is all-knowing. He sees everything past and future.

 

God's creation was originally perfect, but humans, by disobeying him, brought imperfection into the world. Humans are evil and sinful, and must suffer in this world because of their sinfulness. God gives humans the opportunity to accept forgiveness for their sin, and all who do will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, but while they are on earth, they must suffer for his sake. All humans who choose not to accept this forgiveness must go to hell and be tormented for eternity.

 

One Bible verse which Christians are fond of quoting says that atheists are fools. I intend to show that the above concepts of God are completely incompatible and so reveal the impossibility of all of them being true. Who is the fool? The fool is the one who believes impossible things and calls them divine mysteries.

 

Perfection Seeks Even More Perfection

 

What did God do during that eternity before he created everything? If God was all that existed back then, what disturbed the eternal equilibrium and compelled him to create? Was he bored? Was he lonely? God is supposed to be perfect. If something is perfect, it is complete--it needs nothing else. We humans engage in activities because we are pursuing that elusive perfection, because there is disequilibrium caused by a difference between what we are and what we want to be. If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible.

 

Perfection Begets Imperfection

 

But, for the sake of argument, let's continue. Let us suppose that this perfect God did create the universe. Humans were the crown of his creation, since they were created in God's image and have the ability to make decisions. However, these humans spoiled the original perfection by choosing to disobey God.

 

What!? If something is perfect, nothing imperfect can come from it. Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, and yet this "perfect" God created a "perfect" universe which was rendered imperfect by the "perfect" humans. The ultimate source of imperfection is God. What is perfect cannot become imperfect, so humans must have been created imperfect. What is perfect cannot create anything imperfect, so God must be imperfect to have created these imperfect humans. A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

 

The Freewill Argument

 

The Christians' objection to this argument involves freewill. They say that a being must have freewill to be happy. The omnibenevolent God did not wish to create robots, so he gave humans freewill to enable them to experience love and happiness. But the humans used this freewill to choose evil, and introduced imperfection into God's originally perfect universe. God had no control over this decision, so the blame for our imperfect universe is on the humans, not God.

 

Here is why the argument is weak. First, if God is omnipotent, then the assumption that freewill is necessary for happiness is false. If God could make it a rule that only beings with freewill may experience happiness, then he could just as easily have made it a rule that only robots may experience happiness. The latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

 

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

 

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

 

The point remains: the presence of imperfections in the universe disproves the supposed perfection of its creator.

 

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

 

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

 

Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

 

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. Clearly, a limited offense does not warrant unlimited punishment. God's sentencing of the imperfect humans to an eternity in hell for a mere mortal lifetime of sin is infinitely more unjust than this punishment. The absurd injustice of this infinite punishment is even greater when we consider that the ultimate source of human imperfection is the God who created them. A perfectly just God who sentences his imperfect creation to infinite punishment for finite sins is impossible.

 

Belief More Important Than Action

 

Consider all of the people who live in the remote regions of the world who have never even heard the "gospel" of Jesus Christ. Consider the people who have naturally adhered to the religion of their parents and nation as they had been taught to do since birth. If we are to believe the Christians, all of these people will perish in the eternal fire for not believing in Jesus. It does not matter how just, kind, and generous they have been with their fellow humans during their lifetime: if they do not accept the gospel of Jesus, they are condemned. No just God would ever judge a man by his beliefs rather than his actions.

 

Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

 

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, but instead, in his infinite wisdom, he has opted to offer this indecipherable amalgam of books which is the Bible as a means for avoiding the hell which he has prepared for us. The perfect God has decided to reveal his wishes in this imperfect work, written in the imperfect language of imperfect man, translated, copied, interpreted, voted on, and related by imperfect man.

 

No two men will ever agree what this perfect word of God is supposed to mean, since much of it is either self- contradictory, or obscured by enigmatic symbols. And yet the perfect God expects us imperfect humans to understand this paradoxical riddle using the imperfect minds with which he has equipped us. Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

 

Contradictory Justice

 

One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. It contradicts itself on matters of justice, for the same just God who assures his people that sons shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers turns around and destroys an entire household for the sin of one man (he had stolen some of Yahweh's war loot). It was this same Yahweh who afflicted thousands of his innocent people with plague and death to punish their evil king David for taking a census (?!). It was this same Yahweh who allowed the humans to slaughter his son because the perfect Yahweh had botched his own creation. Consider how many have been stoned, burned, slaughtered, raped, and enslaved because of Yahweh's skewed sense of justice. The blood of innocent babies is on the perfect, just, compassionate hands of Yahweh.

 

Contradictory History

 

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused about exactly who Esau's wives were, whether Timnah was a concubine or a son, and whether Jesus' earthly lineage is through Solomon or his brother Nathan. These are but a few of hundreds of documented historical contradictions. If the Bible cannot confirm itself in mundane earthly matters, how are we to trust it on moral and spiritual matters?

 

Unfulfilled Prophecy

 

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 to find but one of many misinterpreted prophecies of which Christians are either passively or willfully ignorant. The fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible is cited as proof of its divine inspiration, and yet here is but one major example of a prophecy whose intended meaning has been and continues to be twisted to support subsequent absurd and false doctrines. There are no ends to which the credulous will not go to support their feeble beliefs in the face of compelling evidence against them.

 

The Bible is imperfect. It only takes one imperfection to destroy the supposed perfection of this alleged Word of God. Many have been found. A perfect God who reveals his perfect will in an imperfect book is impossible.

 

The Omniscient Changes the Future

 

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.

 

The Omniscient is Surprised

 

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. The Bible says that God experiences all of the emotions of humans, including anger, sadness, and happiness. We humans experience emotions as a result of new knowledge. A man who had formerly been ignorant of his wife's infidelity will experience the emotions of anger and sadness only after he has learned what had previously been hidden. In contrast, the omniscient God is ignorant of nothing. Nothing is hidden from him, nothing new may be revealed to him, so there is no gained knowledge to which he may emotively react.

 

We humans experience anger and frustration when something is wrong which we cannot fix. The perfect, omnipotent God, however, can fix anything. Humans experience longing for things we lack. The perfect God lacks nothing. An omniscient, omnipotent, and perfect God who experiences emotion is impossible.

 

The Conclusion of the matter

 

I have offered arguments for the impossibility, and thus the non- existence, of the Christian God Yahweh. No reasonable and freethinking individual can accept the existence of a being whose nature is so contradictory as that of Yahweh, the "perfect" creator of our imperfect universe. The existence of Yahweh is as impossible as the existence of cubic spheres or invisible pink unicorns.

 

Should any Christian who reads this persist in defending these impossibilities through means of "divine transcendence" and "faith," and should any Christian continue to call me an atheist fool, I will be forced to invoke the wrath of the Invisible Pink Unicorn:

 

"You are a fool for denying the existence of the IPU. You have rejected true faith and have relied on your feeble powers of human reason and thus arrogantly denied the existence of Her Divine Transcendence, and so are you condemned."

 

If such arguments are good enough for Yahweh, they are good enough for Her Invisible Pinkness.

 

As for me and my house, we shall choose reality.

 

Another great argument (repeated over and over to a very stubborn Xian on another thread) is this one about Jebus and prayer. Jebus says we'll get whatever we ask for in prayer, period. But this can be easily disproven. From evilbible.com:

Jesus Lied About Prayer

 

Jesus is quoted many times in the Bible saying that a believer can ask for anything through prayer and receive it. He even goes so far as to say that mountains and trees can be thrown into the sea simply by praying for it. This is clearly a lie, and can be proven to be a lie by any believer. Simply pray for me to be converted to Christianity right away. Or better yet ask God to move the mountains behind my house. He could make a lot of converts that way. If I’m converted today, I’ll post a public apology on my web site and devote my life to kissing God’s ass. If I’m not converted it would only be fair for you to apologize and devote your life to kissing my butt.

 

Here are the quotes from Jesus that proves that he lied:

 

1) And Jesus answered and said to them, "Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, `Be taken up and cast into the sea,' it will happen. "And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive." (Matthew 21:21-22 NAS)

 

2) Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8 NAB)

 

3) Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. (Matthew 18:19-20 NAS)

 

4) Amen, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it shall be done for him. Therefore I tell you, all that you ask for in prayer, believe that you will receive it and it shall be yours. (Mark 11:24-25 NAB)

 

5) And I tell you, ask and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and the one who seeks, finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. (Luke 11:9-13 NAB)

 

6) And whatever you ask in my name, I will do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything of me in my name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14 NAB)

 

7) If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask for whatever you want and it will be done for you. (John 15:7 NAB)

 

8) It was not you who chose me, but I who chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit that will remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name he may give you. (John 15:16 NAB)

 

9) On that day you will not question me about anything. Amen, amen, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. Until now you have not asked anything in my name; ask and you will receive, so that your joy may be complete. (John 16:23-24 NAB)

 

A lot of Christians ignore what Jesus actually says in the Bible. They also tend to add things to the actual words to make them say something else. If you honestly and truthfully read these quotes, without adding to them, it is very easy to see that Jesus is not saying that God will think about your prayers. He says God will grant all your prayers. Clearly, God doesn’t grant all prayers and this proves that Jesus was a habitual liar.

 

Your turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All practiced atheists who have thought out the conclusions will quickly admit they cannot disprove God. I quickly admit to you that I cannot prove God, either.

 

I've never heard a single Atheist claim that he or she cannot disprove God's existence. I've heard many claim they cannot disprove the existence of all gods, or that they are certain no gods exist at all. Most Atheists, like myself, are open to the possibility that there may be gods of some nature, somewhere. But the evidence for the existence of any gods, including the Xian one, is simply so insufficient as to suggest that no gods exist.

 

 

That isn't the point. And the proof of burden is upon God, not me. I'm just the apologist. I just try to explain what I can.

 

The apologist is supposed to provide convincing arguments for God's existence. Hence, you have your duty to prove to me your god is real. Sure, I do agree that God has a responsibility to prove his own existence, if his message is that important for us. So going on that alone, since God doesn't make any attempt to show himself to me and made no attempt to appear or otherwise prove himself in a clear and powerful way when I was in the process of deconverting, I can conclude he doesn't exist.

 

You have several problems in what you say here. It is not my duty to prove anything to you. It is my privilege should I desire to do so, and where I can explain thing, I will try. That doesn't guarantee you will understand or even try to.

 

It is my duty to testify to that which I have witnessed. That is different.

=====

"I've never heard a single Atheist claim that he or she cannot disprove God's existence. I've heard many claim they cannot disprove the existence of all gods, or that they are certain no gods exist at all. Most Atheists, like myself, are open to the possibility that there may be gods of some nature, somewhere. But the evidence for the existence of any gods, including the Xian one, is simply so insufficient as to suggest that no gods exist."

 

There is a logical fallacy for this type of thinking: Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance)

additionally, suggesting is far from proving.

 

"I've never heard a single Atheist claim that he or she cannot disprove God's existence."

I've heard them admit it, but we are one to one on this, aren't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will never go back. I couldn't even if I wanted to. Like others have said it would be like trying to believe in Santa Claus again.

 

I think that hits the final head of the nail in the coffin for belief!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you all one and the same in reasons for opposing Christianity? I don't think so. I am interested in discovery of different reasons and patterns.

I don't oppose Christianity per se. I just don't subscribe to it. Many of my friends and family still do however. I don't feel opposition towards them about it. In my estimation they either will or will not outgrow the need for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TGL,

 

When someone here asks you to prove God exists, they are usually asking you to prove the story that you believe in about God is true, i.e., the Christian God. No one can prove or disprove God unless one assigns certain attributes to it and that is exactly what all the stories about God does. God doesn't belong to a certain story about it. That is very small thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mrs. Grit with her banal and xtianeasespreche will soon go the way of most of the lightweights"

Lady Grit to you, Sir.

 

I didn't promise to stay here, but I bet I can bat any of *your stuff* out of the ball park...if only because you are so sure of yourself. I love to play with those;) "I dunno, but I'm willing to listen" How about this...I'm willing to discuss? "listen" automatically puts you in the teacher chair and me in the student chair. I don't think you have proven you deserve your chair, yet. If we discuss we are peer, until one can show something of substance. I don't claim it yet, but I don't give it to you yet, either.

 

Ms. Grit...

 

The title of "Lady" can be debated, as it is a bestowed title from a Regency or Society. My people kicked King Georges ass out of this Country just a few years back, royal titles mean nothing to this mean.old.man over the internutt.

 

I'll try and be polite as I am able.

 

This, ExChristian dot net is the playground that our Webmaster and Board Owner has tasked me with hauling the garbage from. I am not a particularly *nice guy* when it comes to folks coming into the sandbox here and assuming they are welcome to start "shooting fish in a barrel" salvation.

 

As to "being full of myself and you being able to "bat my stuff out of the ball park", you are welcome here in Lion's Den to do so. You'll find that there are folks more able to clearly articulate their positions and processes better than I.

 

The big however is simply this: You'll need to be able to convince this half assed and half educated dirtball of your positions so clearly that there is zero chance of misunderstanding.

If you can't win me over , then anything else you try and do is a useless chore, as you haven't laid a flat and true foundation for anything else you will attempt to say.

 

Have no idea what would constitute *peerage*, however I could give a rats ass less about what you consider "equality". If you want to compare professional and educational resumes, life and work experiences, I suspect I can go tit for tat, and bat you out of any ball park at to who and whom I have worked for, folks with whom my various business endeavors have contracted with, places globally that I have been (and kicked out of!), and the notable persons whom have signed checks for my services.

 

I stand rather happy that I am not the ExC "braintrust" nor the repository for more information than the average sectarian can pick apart. Others here are wonderfully able to give you as much fine tuned discussion as you care for.

 

As for Me and mine? We'll continue to live well sans the black robed and three piece suited whores preaching garbage in our faces.

 

kevinL, Board Sanitation Engineer, Washer of Bottles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my duty to testify to that which I have witnessed. That is different.

 

Quit bandying about already! What have you "witnessed"? I really hope you understand the definition of the word witness before you start blathering though.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

 

A witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a crime or dramatic event through their senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching) and can help certify important considerations to the crime or event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a post I've just made on another thread...

 

God is all-good, all-loving, and all-powerful, right? If so, he'd never have let evil exist in the first place, being full of love and full of power. If he were all-knowing, he'd know what permitting evil to exist would do. So, the presence of evil proves God doesn't exist.

 

Evil is not necessary for free will. One can simply choose between varying degrees of good. If I can think that up, surely an all-powerful god can do even better. The argument that evil is necessary for free will is just a sad attempt to make the Xian religion seem reasonable when it is in fact nonsense.

 

No all-good god would want to see suffering. One that is also all-powerful would have the ability to prevent it. One that is all-knowing would know why suffering should be done away with - not just for the betterment of his creatures but for his own greater glory. A god with ego problems like the god of Xianity can't possibly avoid that chance. The existence of suffering proves God doesn't exist.

 

He'd also do away with sin and the devil. The devil is the source of sin and all the problems in the world, right? He is the one responsible for screwing up everything that God does, right? Then why not just get rid of him? It would solve everything. Only a cruel sick-ass would let such a dangerous creature exist to continue to do damage to al already damaged world, right? That the devil exists in Xian mythology proves that God can't possibly exist and the entire mythology is flawed.

 

Or how about the fact that every living being in the universe has to devour and/or oppress other living beings just to survive? Plants eat insects, or devour microrganisms in water, insects and animals and people eat plants, people and animals eat insects, insect bite and can poison people and animals, people and animals eat each other, people destroy plants and insects and animals to make homes or clear land for their use and animals often do the same, etc. See what I mean? Why would God make a world where living beings have to destroy each other? We can't even walk without stepping on things. The very nature of the universe proves God doesn't exist.

<snip>

Your turn.

this is basically the theodicy. It usually isn't cited for proving that God doesn't exist but to put forth a problem with the God of the Bible, that those three things can't be true simulataneously. I have previously addressed this to some extent in http://truegrit.weblogs.us/2004/08/24/the-house-of-cards/

 

I also explain some of these things in my basic apologetic about Jesus Christ,

http://truegrit.weblogs.us/2005/06/15/why-...ed-on-the-cross%20/" target="_blank"> http://truegrit.weblogs.us/2005/06/15/why-...ed-on-the-cross /

 

Quickly:

the presence of evil is the absence of God, but in order to have the negative, there needs to be the correlative positive against which we compare the negative. To know evil we must also have a concept of good. Your citation of levels is one of lesser good which could be lesser evil, but the ends of the spectrum remain. Evil is not good, and vice versa. Otherwise we lose meaning in absurdity and can't know anything... then, what is the point of the thinking process at all?

 

All we know of Satan from his name to his nature we learn from God's testimony in the Bible. But every culture has a concept of evil, and many have evil entities. There is a clue in all that. Man has a basic problem with evil and pain: trying to explain it , understand it, and deal with it.

 

"Why would God make a world where living beings have to destroy each other? "

 

Why the need to blame God for everything. God can exist and still allow us to make our mistakes and rebellions...even very evil ones. Genesis account gives us the explanation for the Christian system of looking at this. God didn't create evil to rule the existance of man originally. Man exercised his right to choose. There is a systematically degrading system described. Christians explain this as the rule of sin as it invaded all parts of earth's existance. See, pagans have a different scope on this, many of the nature religions want to accept death as part of the good which is found as balance in the earth.

 

"He'd also do away with sin and the devil."

Um, I think that is a basic tenet of Christianity. Not on your timetable, but it is in the doctrine.

 

"No all-good god would want to see suffering."

To allow for suffering is not the same as wanting it. I don't think God wanted rebellion from Himself, but certainly allowed for it. Can you construct true freedom any other way if you are God? And being god is what this type of statement is implying. As though if it were you and you were good you wouldn't do things this way.

 

Which brings an additional problem for you: just how have you come to construct your ideas of good and evil? Are you so original and free that you didn't get them...somehwere? eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my duty to testify to that which I have witnessed. That is different.

 

Quit bandying about already! What have you "witnessed"? I really hope you understand the definition of the word witness before you start blathering though.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

 

A witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a crime or dramatic event through their senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching) and can help certify important considerations to the crime or event.

 

I have. Just not on this board. A person only has so much time. And if you weren't lazy you could find it on my site. I have a personal testimony. I say what I have witnessed. But I'm here to talk...and that means letting others lead the conversation at times. It works well for me, sorry you aren't happy with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For one thing, we have history here with others who left Christianity and we are able to speak of the reasons why others, like us, left, because we are part of this community; where someone who has not had interaction with us can only make assumptions.

 

Christians, time and time again argue for the existance of god, but even if God does exist, they take it a step further and assume that if god exists it's the Christian god. They assume only their beliefs are correct, their particular denomination has the truth of what Christianity is, what god is, what is required for salvation, and their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. Everyone else who does not believe the same way they do is wrong, even other Christians. All they know is what they have been taught about God, Christainity, and the Bible. They repeat and believe what they have heard instead of being open to other possibilities. Including that God may be different from what they believe it to be, or that it may not even exist.

 

The reason I left Christianity is that I love history. Learning that the Christian history you learn in church isn't true, led me to question and investigate all of Christianity's foundations. Why is it that Christianity doesn't teach the truth about itself? Why is it that Christians only believe what they are told to believe and spread non factual information on to others, based only on what they have heard, handed down in turn from someone else they have heard it from, who heard it from someone else, an so on and so on.

 

Christians believe what they do because they choose to not ask questions, do their homework, or accept the possibility they may be wrong. They are so wrapped up in finding the answers inside Christianity, because they believe what they have been told and that is that Christianity has all the answers to every and all questions that may be asked. They refuse to accept that anything outside of it may have better answers.

 

Why is it that Christians think we are really deep down wallowing in our pain. Could it be because that's exactly what they are doing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my duty to testify to that which I have witnessed. That is different.

 

Quit bandying about already! What have you "witnessed"? I really hope you understand the definition of the word witness before you start blathering though.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness

 

A witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a crime or dramatic event through their senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching) and can help certify important considerations to the crime or event.

I have. Just not on this board. A person only has so much time. And if you weren't lazy you could find it on my site.

 

Oh no you don't ThunderCunt.

"It is my duty to testify to that which I have witnessed."

 

You claim THIS is your duty, yet you call me lazy because YOU came HERE and made this claim. Buuuuuut just to refer people back to you're site. You have no new argument, and your site sure as fuck doesn't fit as witnessing given the definition of witness I just posted.

 

But I'm here to talk...and that means letting others lead the conversation at times. It works well for me, sorry you aren't happy with it.

 

No...you are NOT here to talk, you are here to whore your blog page. I'm sorry you don't get enough attention in your life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians, time and time again argue for the existance of god, but even if God does exist, they take it a step further and assume that if god exists it's the Christian god. They assume only their beliefs are correct, their particular denomination has the truth of what Christianity is, what god is, what is required for salvation, and their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. Everyone else who does not believe the same way they do is wrong, even other Christians.

I think this is because they believe that God and creation are separate therefore existing in duality. This thinking naturally lends itself to one having to be right while someone else is wrong. It is a non-inclusive belief system that creates enemies to the one adhering to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a logical fallacy for this type of thinking: Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance)

additionally, suggesting is far from proving.

 

There is a logical fallacy for your type of thinking: Shifting the burden of proof, additionally, atheists have no burden of proving God doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a post I've just made on another thread...

 

 

Why the Christian God is Impossible

by Chad Docterman

 

<snip>

 

Proving a Universal Negative

 

<snip>A perfect creator God is impossible.

 

Perfection Begets Imperfection

 

A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible.

 

The Freewill Argument

 

<snip>

 

Here is why the argument is weak. First,God had no control over this decisionhe latter option is clearly superior, since perfect robots will never make decisions which could render them or their creator unhappy, whereas beings with freewill could. A perfect and omnipotent God who creates beings capable of ruining their own happiness is impossible.

 

Second, even if we were to allow the necessity of freewill for happiness, God could have created humans with freewill who did not have the ability to choose evil, but to choose between several good options.

 

Third, God supposedly has freewill, and yet he does not make imperfect decisions. If humans are miniature images of God, our decisions should likewise be perfect. Also, the occupants of heaven, who presumably must have freewill to be happy, will never use that freewill to make imperfect decisions. Why would the originally perfect humans do differently?

 

<snip>

All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering

 

God is omniscient. When he created the universe, he saw the sufferings which humans would endure as a result of the sin of those original humans. He heard the screams of the damned. Surely he would have known that it would have been better for those humans to never have been born (in fact, the Bible says this very thing), and surely this all-compassionate deity would have foregone the creation of a universe destined to imperfection in which many of the humans were doomed to eternal suffering. A perfectly compassionate being who creates beings which he knows are doomed to suffer is impossible.

 

Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins

 

God is perfectly just, and yet he sentences the imperfect humans he created to infinite suffering in hell for finite sins. <snip>

 

Belief More Important Than Action

 

<snip>

 

Perfection's Imperfect Revelation

 

The Bible is supposedly God's perfect Word. It contains instructions to humankind for avoiding the eternal fires of hell. How wonderful and kind of this God to provide us with this means of overcoming the problems for which he is ultimately responsible! The all-powerful God could have, by a mere act of will, eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure, <snip>

 

Surely the all-wise and all-powerful God would have known that it would have been better to reveal his perfect will directly to each of us, rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man.

 

Contradictory Justice

 

One need look to no source other than the Bible to discover its imperfections, for it contradicts itself and thus exposes its own imperfection. <snip>

 

Contradictory History

 

The Bible contradicts itself on matters of history. A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused <snip>

 

Unfulfilled Prophecy

 

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1 <snip>

 

The Omniscient Changes the Future

 

A God who knows the future is powerless to change it. An omniscient God who is all-powerful and freewilled is impossible.

 

The Omniscient is Surprised

 

A God who knows everything cannot have emotions. <snip>

 

The Conclusion of the matter

 

<snip>.

 

 

 

we'll get whatever we ask for in prayer, period.

 

 

 

Jesus is quoted many times in the Bible saying that a believer can ask for anything through prayer and receive it. <snip>

 

A lot of Christians ignore what Jesus actually says in the Bible. <snip>

time to address the article now.

 

"If God is perfect, there can be no disequilibrium. There is nothing he needs, nothing he desires, and nothing he must or will do. A God who is perfect does nothing except exist. A perfect creator God is impossible."

 

Problem: what do you do with the concept of love? How does one express love without an other, no matter how perfect the One is? Is there something imperfect about desiring to express the perfection of Love? Which of course segues into the idea that of all the characteristics to describe oneself by, God equates Himself with Love. So this has to be an important part of Who He Is.

 

FYI:

"Someone once said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree"-Jesus said that.

 

"A perfect God who creates imperfect humans is impossible."

 

Only if you think that a perfect God is simply cloning Himself. If He creates something it could be imperfect without Him and perfect with Him. He doesn't have to disallow imperfection in others. Satan, when known as Lucifer was said to be the son of the morning, so he was originally good in the Bible account. The whole definition of evil is being without God in some lasting intrinsic way. Choice demands that there be a choice to be without Him... otherwise nothing is capable of choice. Which brings me to ask,"why is choice so important to us? " What creates this need to be able to choose within humanity?

 

On omnipotence and the nature of God:

"God had no control over this decision"

 

The idea that God cannot define Himself is at the root of this contention. One of the most difficult things we have to put our minds around is the idea of true freedom: to allow others to think and choose differently from us. Is God wrong to decide this is of primary importance ? I personally don't think so. I personally value freedom.

 

"choose between several good options."

Sometimes it comes down to "me" or "not me". In the case of God, not God is the primary definition of evil. Evil is "not good" so to some degree the choices have to be adulaterated with evil somehow...and then you have delayed the problem, but not eradicated it. You still have to deal with "evil".

 

"miniature images of God" Again, the clone idea. An image is not "the same as". We are not little gods running around...although some of us would like to be. We don't have perfection now because of the explanation of sin...that is whole purpose of the concepts in the Genesis account- explaining to us how we find our realities at this point of existance.

You don't have to believe it- but it does have cohesiveness as a system of thought.

 

"All-good God Knowingly Creates Future Suffering"

 

Actually this is the first real point so far. This is extremely hard to understand and to explain. Although , again the point of allowing is different from creating for express purpose. In the doctrine of Salvation is the explanation of the outcome being worth the process.

 

I find this is going to predicate itself on accepting terms of the faith. I admit to the difficulty of balancing this without those tenets. So while I could argue it within my own belief system, I don't believe I could make it an argument for those here. You have to have some sense that it might be a possibility.

 

"Infinite Punishment for Finite Sins"

Jesus Christ is the answer for this misunderstanding. God wants to give, rather infinite forgiveness for finite sins...

 

"Belief More Important Than Action"

This is the tough one for you, right?

That you can do nothing to become truly good? That sort of impotence is painful-for all of us. The best answer I have is in my "Why Christ died for us" post. In some ways, having faith is the fairest way, but not everyone sees it that way.

 

"The all-powerful God could have eliminated all of the problems we humans must endure"

You see this option put forth all the time: nuke them all! He wanted to save what could be saved. We were that important, but the process is messy. Again, you work with broken people and you find this all the time... people are messy and their needs are messy, and there are those who want to throw them away. They don't understand why God just didn't throw everyone away.... for the sake of His perfect world. heh. Glad they're not God/god.

 

"rather than to allow it to be debased and perverted by the imperfect language and botched interpretations of man"

 

God believes in what He wants to do through us, He has enough love to let us do things imperfectly. Kind of like some of us are with our children. They grow up to be something wonderful someday... and that is how I perceive God views it.

 

Contradictory Justice

 

Given that no specific instances were cited in full it would be hard to take each one in an exegesis of what is meant. Deduced down, do you have an ideal of what constitutes perfect justice? Do you have examples of that? You can condemn God as recorded in the Bible, and that means you must have some perfect justice that you implement. Even the best justice system has differing modes for types of situations. I just don't think this makes the case for condemning God...even your own stated idea of God.

 

"A person who reads and compares the contents of the Bible will be confused"

Just because a person is confused does not mean the text is contradictory or confusing. You conflate.

 

"Unfulfilled Prophecy

 

The Bible misinterprets its own prophecies. Read Isaiah 7 and compare it to Matthew 1"

 

I disagree with your view on this passage, but I am sure there are unspoken premises by which this statement was made. But they aren't stated here. I do not see the misinterpretation. Have to agree to disagree.

 

"A God who knows everything cannot have emotions."

 

Not if that God is a person, an impersonal concept has no emotions or personality...but that isn't the picture the God of the Bible gives of Himself. You don't like it and you make another image of god as you like... but that doesn't make it so.

 

So, let's get this logic straight: the more emotion I have the less I know? Emotion precludes knowledge and vice versa?

 

"The Conclusion of the matter"

try again. no conclusiveness yet. fiat, maybe.

 

" we'll get whatever we ask for in prayer, period. "

see, I would never say that. There are conditions in that portion of scripture.

 

"Jesus is quoted many times in the Bible saying that a believer can ask for anything through prayer and receive it. " Read it more closely, not everyone and not all the time. Simple prayer 101, but if you want to argue, the whole thing of faith is going to be a monkey wrench in the works for you. Very subjective.

You end up in the Argumentum ad ignorantiam again.

 

"A lot of Christians ignore what Jesus actually says in the Bible."

this part is true, without the other part being true.

 

ok, I'm tired of typing. I don't have cut and paste answers for you- a little more and then I need to go about some other things for awhile. but I will try to be back:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither of us can prove God or disprove God.

 

Funny then, how this god who has set up a world in which he can neither be proven or disproven expects humanity to beleive in the right version of him or face eternal punishment.

 

Just an observation.

"Just an observation." A very wise one, I think.

Just because we cannot through logic or any other discipline of the mind, prove the existance of God does not mean there are no evidences. They just are not universal scientific methodology ones. i.e. God proved Himself to me, but I cannot take what has proven this to me and hand it over to you- it was personally unreplicably experienced.

 

Actually, the point of Jesus being th eexpress image of the invisible God was to show you, in your own human terms, what God is like. "the right version"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a logical fallacy for your type of thinking: Shifting the burden of proof, additionally, atheists have no burden of proving God doesn't exist.

 

yet you try so hard;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians, time and time again argue for the existance of god, but even if God does exist, they take it a step further and assume that if god exists it's the Christian god. They assume only their beliefs are correct, their particular denomination has the truth of what Christianity is, what god is, what is required for salvation, and their interpretation of the Bible is the only correct one. Everyone else who does not believe the same way they do is wrong, even other Christians.

I think this is because they believe that God and creation are separate therefore existing in duality. This thinking naturally lends itself to one having to be right while someone else is wrong. It is a non-inclusive belief system that creates enemies to the one adhering to it.

I'd like to answer this.

 

What you descibe is antithetical thinking, the dialectic mode. If this is true, then that is not true. Christianity does operate upon that mode of thinking. That there is right and wrong. We have to operate that way all the time even when we are not convinced that this is a correct system of thought...because order and law are necessarily bounded by such lines.

 

At somepoint you find yourself on one side of the fence or the other in such things....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a logical fallacy for your type of thinking: Shifting the burden of proof, additionally, atheists have no burden of proving God doesn't exist.

 

yet you try so hard;)

It doesn't take much trying. It only takes a basic knowledge of debating. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative position. Atheism just happens to be the negative position. So, it falls on you to prove that gods exist. Additionally, if you knew about logic, you'd know that belief is proportional to the evidence presented. How much evidence have you produced for the existence of gods?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.